Frame Selection Methods to Streamline Surgical Video Annotation for Tool Detection Tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the growing volume of surgical data and the increasing demand for annotation, there is a pressing need to streamline the annotation process for surgical videos. Previously, annotation tools for object detection tasks have greatly evolved, reducing time expense and enhancing ease. There are also many initial frame selection approaches for Artificial Intelligence (AI) assisted annotation tasks to further reduce human effort. However, these methods have rarely been implemented and reported in the context of surgical datasets, especially in cataract surgery datasets. The identification of initial frames to annotate before the use of any tools or algorithms determines annotation efficiency. Therefore, in this paper, we chose to prioritize the development of a method for selecting initial frames to facilitate the subsequent automated annotation process. We propose a customized initial frames selection method based on feature clustering and compare it to commonly used temporal selection methods. In each method, initial frames from cataract surgery videos are selected to train a surgical tool detection model. The model assists in the automated annotation process by predicting bounding boxes for the surgery video objects in the remaining frames. Evaluations of these methods are based on how many edits users need to perform when annotating the initial frames and how many edits users are expected to perform to correct all predictions. Additionally, the total annotation cost for each method is compared. Results indicate that on average, the proposed cluster-based approach requires the fewest total edits and exhibits the lowest total annotation cost compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight a promising direction for developing a complete application, featuring streamlined AI-assisted annotation processes for surgical tool detection tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".